Well Rehabilitation via the Ultrasonic Method and Evaluation of Its Effectiveness from the Pumping Test

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

this paper can be accepted for publication

Author Response

see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the ultrasonic method for Well rehabilitation. The paper is well written. Including some cost numbers would benefit the readers. Ultrasounds probes could be pretty expensive. Please calculate EEO numbers (an example is https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2011.12.005, there are multiple other publications talking about EEO)

 

Author Response

see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of this study is very good. The manuscript has been well referenced. Study results may add to the existing knowledge. However, the following comments may further enhance the quality of this paper:

1. Many keyword selections duplicate the same as in the paper title. Other selections need to be re-chosen.
2. Please use the full word for “incl.”.
3. No first name initials of the authors are necessary when citing their references in the text (Line 65).
4. What is “Stehfest algorithm 368” in Line 91? “(V.F.)” in Line 93?
5. The methodology section is too lengthy. Some general knowledge of “ultrasound” may be ignored.
6. All parameters mentioned in all equations should be defined in the text.
7. A complete legend should be included in all the figures, including the meanings of all the important (red) lines.
8. An English error in Line 258.
9. Figure 4 is difficult to interpret.
10. The schematic view in Figure 6 needs better clarity.
11. Figure 12 mentioned in Line 463 is hard to find.
12. Where does the Results section start?
13. What is “b.t. section” in Line 502?
14. “Seasonal rise” is a better word than “seasonal raise” in Line 504.
15. How to estimate 70-80% perforation holes reopening in Lines 571-572?
16. How to compute the “percentage” in Table 3? What is the denominator used?
17. Figures 14-17 are entirely missing, since Line 653 mentioned Figure 18. Besides, the clarity of this Figure 18 is very poor.
18. Inclusion of a rough estimation of the operation costs may be helpful in bolstering the ultrasound method.
19. To enhance the structuring of this paper, results and discussions may be combined as one section, whereas conclusions may be segregated as an individual section.

Author Response

see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is very interesting and deserves to be published if some changes are included. For example, the structure does not follow the typical one of one scientific paper. Please, include a flowchart to explain the process. Separate the discussion and make a real one, now there are no references, comparisons to other devices and further investigations. Some images have low resolution. Reduce the number of references after some affirmations. See more comments in my attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, thanks for the efforts to improve this paper. However, although you separate the discussion and conclusions. Currently, the discussion is very short and does not include any comparison, mention to the advantages and weakness, future research lines, etc. More literature is needed in this part.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

We have added a discussion section and literary references - see corrected manuscript. 

Manuscript  has been edited (MDPI English Editing)